Currently,
80 million Americans, most of whom are low to middle income, are not
allowed to deduct their charitable gifts. This study states
that the President's deduction will stimulate an additional $14.6
billion per year in additional charitable giving, representing an 11
percent increase in donations to charity across the
country. That totals $80 billion over five years and will
create more than 11.7 million new givers to charity. The
study also points out that the greatest increase in giving will come
from low to middle income taxpayers.

Part of the
President's vision for this country, part of the compassion that he
sees, is empowering individual Americans to do more to help their
fellow citizens in need, and he is very heartened to note the results
of this study.

Q Did
he commission the study?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, he did not.

Q Who
did?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Independent Sector.

Q Like
who?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the name of an organization -- the
Independent Sector. It's a longstanding
organization. I think they represent -- it's an umbrella
group that represents, I believe, some 700 charities nationwide.

Q --
also represent -- I mean,is that an estimate of how much the deduction
will cost?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, because that represents additional giving.
And there is likely to be some type --

Q --
reduction --

MR.
FLEISCHER: But when you take a deduction, you don't know if
the giver is in the 15 percent bracket, the 28 percent, or what bracket
they're in. So you can't make that straight line deduction
from that deduction.

Q --
can you give us an estimate of how much it will cost?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The cost of it? I haven't seen a
taxpayer cost.

Q If
the study says it's among mostly middle- and lower-income, wouldn't
that tell you it's in the 28 percent to 15 percent tax bracket?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Typically that would be right.

Q Did
he make a calculation based on that?

Q Ari,
on the Lockerbie case, victims, advocates and relatives are not sure if
the whole truth ever will be revealed in the case accusing the
administrations all along since 1988, that they were lousy in tracking
the case to Mr. Gadhafi. What can you say to the skeptics
and to those people involved who feel strongly about going much further
in the investigation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you heard the President address that
question this morning, and he expressed his views about the case, and I
have nothing to contribute beyond what the President said.

Q Will
the CIA ever release those documents that were denied to, presented to
the defense in the case?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the CIA.

Q Ari,
Charles Rangel was at the mike earlier today at the stakeout, and he
said tonight's meeting with Bush with the CBC would be one that is
difficult. He cited that the CBC will bring up the issue of
election reform. What is the White House's view on the fact
that they're already saying that it's going to be difficult, and he's
doing this to try to bring everybody together?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's why the President is having the
meeting. He understands that there are certain things that
will be easier than others; other things that may not be so
easy. But the President has one approach to governing, and
he expressed it in his inaugural address, and that is, he is going to
be the President for all people in this country, no matter whether they
voted for him or not. And this meeting is part of his
ongoing outreach effort to members of Congress, including the
Congressional Black Caucus.

Q Well,
what are his thoughts about election reform in light that many African
Americans feel that they were slighted going to polls?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is open-minded on the question of
election reform. And as part of the effort in Congress to
enact campaign finance reform, some have suggested also taking a look
at election reform. In and of itself, our nation needs to take a look
at its election laws, and the President's opinions.

There are
important lessons to be learned from the 2000 presidential election,
including access to the polls, including the question of military
people and having the right to vote, including the effect of different
projections of the vote before polling places were closed and whether
or not that affected turnout. So there are a series of
issues that need to be looked at that affect people from all walks of
life, all voters.

Q How
long is this meeting supposed to last?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Forty-five minutes.

Q Ari,
I wanted to ask you, when the President meets with his Cabinet today,
who will be representing the Justice Department?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Acting Attorney General of the Justice
Department is Eric Holder.

Q He'll
be representing at the Cabinet meeting?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I anticipate he'll be there, yes.

Q And
you will have the two people who were approved yesterday, Gale Norton
and --

MR.
FLEISCHER: If they've been sworn in, they will be there, and
so that's just a technical matter of whether they've been sworn in.

Q Just
following up on the Congressional Black Caucus, I wonder how you
respond -- Congressman Rangel came out and told reporters that in his
meeting with the President, the President indicated that he would be
positive, but that if the other side wasn't going to be positive, that
he could not be positive as well.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the President's approach is to always be
positive. And I think that he's going to go into this
meeting -- his agenda for the meeting is to talk about education, to
talk about faith-based programs that he believes are a solution to a
lot of society's most intractable problems. He is going to
be there to listen, and he looks forward to the meeting.

He knows
that there are other items that people want to talk
about. That is why he is going to listen. And he
is hopeful that the people he is meeting with will also want to listen
to him, and I think they will be.

Q Does
Congressman Rangel then have the incorrect perception of what President
Bush conveyed to him? Because he came out and told reporters
--

MR.
FLEISCHER: It is possible the Congressman and the President
had a conversation that I didn't overhear.

Q Ari,
both The Washington Post and The Washington Times reported that in
Baltimore, Federal Judge William Nickerson ruled against both the
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department saying this
is "censorship on the part of the government and is impermissible under
the First Amendment" when these Clinton departments tried to stop the
display of the Confederate flag over a Confederate cemetery in Point
Lookout, Maryland, and if the President disagreed with Judge Nickerson,
you would surely know about it, wouldn't you?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I really have not heard anything on that federal
case.

Q So
he obviously does not disagree with --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I haven't had a chance to review the federal case
in the question that you're raising.

Q On
the Ashcroft nomination, does the President believe that Ashcroft has
received unfair treatment, or is the level of scrutiny appropriate,
given some of the positions that he has taken in the past?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I haven't heard the President say that he has
received unfair treatment. I think the President, however --
you heard him -- the President said that in the spirit of
bipartisanship, he hopes there will not be delays in the vote on
Senator Ashcroft. And I believe that the Senate has heard
his message and it appears that the vote will indeed take place this
week, which is appropriate.

The
President is concerned about enforcing the nation's laws and making
sure that we fight crime, that we enforce civil rights laws, that we
start making appointments to the other positions at the Department of
Justice. To do all of that, you have to have an Attorney
General in place.

Q Does
that suggest that, in fact, he disagrees with some top Republicans on
Capitol Hill who do, in fact, think that Ashcroft has gotten unfair
treatment, that it's been overly partisan and nasty and reminiscent of
Robert Bork and all the rest?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the President is going to focus and look
ahead and he will welcome the final confirmation into his
Cabinet. We had tremendous progress. The number
of people has been a very encouraging sign about more bipartisanship to
come.

There have
been some troubling things I think that were done in the confirmation
process. For example, the number of written questions
submitted to Senator Ashcroft is approximately 400 from the Senate
Judiciary Committee; from when Janet Reno was being confirmed, the
number of questions, written questions submitted to her were some 30 or
40.

Q So
you don't think there were more questions that were important to be
asked? Or do you think it was just unfair
treatment? I mean, you say the President doesn't think it
was unfair --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I said, I haven't heard him say it was
unfair. I think the President indicated yesterday what he
thought about the process and he hopes that it will be concluded and
concluded in a manner that our nation can have an attorney general, so
that we can get the important work of the attorney general underway.

Q Will
you visit West Coast power just for a moment? As I am sure
you know, there is a meeting in Portland, Oregon, on Friday with the
new Energy Secretary and Western governors. Is that a
hand-wringing meeting? And, if not, what is this
administration bringing to the table, since now you readily admit that
there is nothing the Bush administration can do or is willing to do to
help California in its short-term trouble?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the Department of Energy for
the agenda for that meeting. Obviously, Secretary of Energy
Abraham is going, and so I think you would probably get a little bit
more information if you talk with him.

It's a
meeting with Western governors. Of course, the Governor of
California will be at that meeting, as well. And I think
when people in the West are to look at this issue they realize that
there are regional implications that are both helpful and harmful to
people, depending on what decisions are made. There are
other states outside California that are going to be -- which will
experience difficulties in shipping all their energy to
California. And so there are regional issues that need to be
talked about, and that's why I think the Secretary views it as a
constructive meeting.

Q Just
as a follow-up, if I may. Will you again state for us what
you stated before from that podium, in effect that there is nothing
else the federal government can do or is willing to do to help
California with its short-term energy problem?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I haven't indicated that. What I
have indicated is the President has created an energy working group
that is being chaired by the Vice President. That group
consists of several Cabinet Secretaries, including the Secretary of
Energy, and they are going to review what steps the federal government
may be able to take. But in addition, they're charged -- and
this is their broad charge and this is what they will focus a lot on --
is the broader national energy security policy.

But if
there are short-term things we can do for California, this
administration will be pleased to look at them. But our
focus remains that the best way to help California to help itself is to
allow California to do what they are doing, which is to enact the
legislation that they're working diligently on now.

Q Ari,
on the tax cut, even in the face of the new CBO projections, the House
minority leader today said that the President's plan for a tax cut
"threatens our prosperity and could return us to the big budget
deficits of the 1980s." For the spirit and sake of
bipartisanship on the Hill, would the President consider submitting to
Congress a tax package that is smaller than the one he campaigned on?

MR.
FLEISCHER: What really threatens the prosperity of our
nation and the size of the surplus is more spending by politicians in
Washington. And to underscore that, CBO -- the Congressional
Budget Office, which is non-partisan, today came out with their new
estimates indicating that the surplus would be $1 trillion larger than
they anticipated last year.

They
predicted $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, $3.1 trillion
of that will be available for purposes other than Social Security.

The
President's tax cut is -- I read in the papers, are estimated at $1.6
trillion over the next 10 years. The reason I walk you
through that is, the biggest change, or one of the biggest changes from
when the Congressional Budget Office issued its last projection in
July.

Since July,
the CBO notes that Congress and the previous administration agreed to
spend $561 billion in new spending over the next 10 years, while they
agreed to cut taxes by $37 billion over the next 10 years.

The
existence of a growing surplus can be a mixed bag. If it's
used wisely and properly, if it's returned to the taxpayers who created
it, then President Bush thinks we'll be on our way to a tax
cut. If it's used by the politicians to increase the size of
the federal government to spend more money, as has been done in the
past, then the size of the surplus risks our prosperity and risks being
spent on more government.

Q But
the point is that there are divisions that are becoming quite apparent
on Capitol Hill. Democrats have not favored the size of your
tax cut; Republicans do, and they're going to butt heads over
it. The President has been trying to build this spirit of
bipartisanship, and I'm wondering if he's willing to go to the mat on
the tax cut that he campaigned on, or if he's willing to compromise and
come more toward the Democrat side.

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President stressed very directly in his
meeting today -- bipartisan, with the Ways and Means Committee members
and with the Senate Finance Committee members --
the importance of enacting it, and that he will fight for the tax cut
that he ran on, which includes marginal, across-the-board rate cuts,
reduction of the marriage penalty, elimination of the death tax, giving
charitable deductions to people who don't itemize their
taxes. And he stressed that the biggest risk we face is that
the surplus will be spent.

Certainly,
when you look back at the last several Congresses and the actions of
the previous administration, the surplus is more vulnerable to spending
than anything else. And if we don't cut taxes, the surplus
will be spent. It's another good reason to cut taxes, in the
President's opinion.

Q So
he's saying, my way or the highway?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, as always, the President will work with the
Congress. But he's going to fight for his tax cut.

Q Ari,
on the tax cut, in the budget, the CBO numbers are predicated on
increasing spending at the rate of inflation. With your
proposal for a military tax pay raise, a prescription drug benefit, is
the President committed to increasing spending only at the rate of
inflation and no more?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me note that in the last three years, federal
spending on domestic discretionary programs, which are those programs
that Congress has the option to fund every year and they vote on every
year, increased at a 6-percent rate each and every year, in excess of
inflation.

One of the
things I think you will hear the President discuss with his Cabinet
today is the importance of holding the line on spending. And I think
you may hear more about that from the President himself. So
I would urge you to be attentive to the Cabinet meeting.

Q What
does holding the line on spending mean with regard to -- is it the rate
of inflation, less, more?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that's something the President will
discuss.

Q That's
what the Democrats say the President ought to do, hold the line on
spending.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Then we should have agreement on spending and
there should not be excess spending.

Q Well,
that's nice to say, but they say that, first of all, the tax cut is
ultimately larger than you say it is, and that all the programs that
you want to do, from faith-based to missile defense to prescription
drugs wind up costing more than there is room for.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me make a fundamental point about what
President Bush believes -- and there's a new sheriff in
town. Cutting taxes is not, and can never be, government
spending. Cutting taxes means people keep the money that
they make and less money comes to Washington, so Washington can't spend
it in the first place. It's a different approach than many
people have had in this town, and it's reflective of a new President
who has a different philosophy than what Washington has been used to
for many years that allowed policies to take place where taxes were
high and, therefore, spending increased.

Q But
you're not answering the question.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, you indicated that that's akin to
spending. When you cut taxes, that is not government spending.

Q Their
point is you want a big tax cut and you want a lot of new spending,
too, and there is just not enough to do it.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the numbers that the Congressional Budget
Office, which is non-partisan, came out with today are the surplus is
$3.1 trillion for non-Social Security purposes. The
President's proposed tax cut is by some estimates $1.6 trillion over 10
years. It fits in and it fits in well.

Q On
the tax cut, for the last two days we've heard members of Congress,
both Republicans and Democrats, suggest that this might have to be
done, as one put it today, in waves. And even Democrats seem
to be saying, if that is so, the first wave should be across-the-board
tax cuts. How much is the President hearing that? Do you
see any consensus at all in the meetings he's having with members of
Congress on any way to proceed here, even if it's only part of the
way?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is amenable to ideas for how to
move the tax cut through, and if one of those ideas was to have the
marginal income tax rate reductions come first, the President is
open-minded on that question. I think, in fact, given the
softness in the economy, given the importance of marginal income tax
rate cuts, I think that's something the President would look favorably
upon.

Q You're
saying, in fact, if that is a movement -- and you had indicated earlier
that there was a lot of pressure for that in the House -- we've got two
senators of both parties saying that they might look at that and that
might be a better way to go -- it sounds as if the White House is ready
then to separate out across-the-board tax cuts and do it more quickly
because there seems to be a growing consensus for it.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind you have several steps in a
rather lengthy process, and the process begins when the President sends
his tax plan up to the Hill. And that will be one
comprehensive plan that the President will send. At that
point, then it is a matter of the congressional
prerogative. All revenue bills originate, of course, in the
Ways and Means Committee in the House of
Representatives. And the tradition at least in the last
several years has been for the House to break up its tax legislation
into incremental steps. The Senate, because they have
different rules, sometimes it does that, sometimes they don't.

But we will
be respectful of the congressional prerogatives. What the President is
going to focus on is the bottom line and will the tax cut get enacted
into law so the American people can get the relief they deserve.

Q On
the President's priorities, it sounds like what you're saying is that
the President believes our budgetary and, thus, long-term economic
outlook is so rosy we can have this significant tax cut, build the
national missile defense, provide prescription drugs, reform Social
Security, and we can have it all.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me repeat the numbers from the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office. They project that even with a
slowing down short-term economy, that the surplus will be $5.6 trillion
over the next 10 years; 2.5 trillion of that is going to be reserved
for Social Security; and that leaves $3.1 trillion for other vital
government programs such as increasing funding for education, for a
missile defense, for other initiatives.

The
President's tax cut is $1.6 trillion. Now, our education
system still is good enough in this country that you can see that if
the surplus is $3.1 trillion and the tax cut is $1.6 trillion, there is
plenty of room for this tax cut.

Q But
you rely on the projections. And I guess what you are saying
is the President has a very sunny -- even though we are in a slowdown,
even contraction -- the President has a very sunny, very rosy outlook
for the economy in the long-term.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

Q How
does he afford that if he doesn't?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the word "rosy," the word "sunny" in
this town is indicative of something very different. And
what has happened is the Congressional Budget Office, which, again, is
nonpartisan, their projections are right in line with the blue chip
economic forecasters. I wouldn't describe them as optimistic
or pessimistic. I would describe them as close to accurate
as the estimating business can be.

Q He's
more bullish.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it's just accurate projections of the
economy to the best degree government estimators can do.

And one
other point out, for the last -- '97, '98, '99, 2000 and now 2001 --
the last five years running, all those estimates have been revised
upward. So, if anything, these projections are -- on the
last five-year basis, been historically conservative.

Q One
of the problems with the surplus, though, is more than two-thirds of it
comes in the second five years, not in the first five. How do you deal
with that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That always gets addressed as a matter of
phase-ins for the tax cuts and the manner in which you put your
programs into effect. But there is a real surplus in
existence now.

Q I
think it was Senator Conrad earlier at the stakeout, he was saying
there is significant uncertainty in the CBO numbers. His
perception is that the six-year variants could be anything from a
deficit to a trillion-dollar surplus. And he is saying that,
with that uncertainty, we need to be a heck of a lot more cautious than
doing a $1.6 trillion tax cut.

MR.
FLEISCHER: And I think no matter what business you're in,
whether you're in the government or you're in the private sector or
you're in the nonprofit sector, that when you prepare a budget, you
prepare your budget based on the most reliable, most accurate, most
recent information and you proceed accordingly. There is
always room for variance in budgets. We will work with the best, most
accurate, most reliable forecasts.

Q There
are reports -- I don't know if they are accurate or not -- that India
really wanted the U.S. to low key in the aid. It has not
asked for massive aid, even though the death toll has gone up so
devastatingly. Is that true?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, the President spoke with the Prime
Minister and we received a request from the Indian government for aid
and we are working with the Indian government.

Q But
did they ask for a very low-key approach?

MS.
COUNTRYMAN: I think we offered and they accepted our offer.
It was initiated by us.

MS.
COUNTRYMAN: AID has pledged $5 million; so far, $2 million
has been spent.

Q About
the tax cut again, if I could. When you look at the
President's core program of reducing marginal rates and inheritance and
marriage and a few other items, all of your initiatives, to date,
education, faith-based, have also included tax
incentives. The energy proposal is making its way on the
Hill and has tax incentives. Isn't there a good chance that
the aggregate cost of a tax cut proposal will be much larger than $1.6
trillion?

MR.
FLEISCHER: And keep in mind that in all our estimates during
the campaign for those other provisions, we built those into our
budget. And so, to avoid a double count, if you want to suggest that
those should be considered as part of a tax plan, you would have to
subtract it from the spending estimates from which those were
contained.

Let me give
you an example. The President, in December of 1999, proposed
what you just described accurately as his tax cut
proposal. In the spring of 2000 he proposed a health care
tax credit to help low-income Americans get access to health insurance
-- a $2,000 tax credit.

If you look
at all the budget estimates we've prepared to show that -- spending and
tax decision the President made, fit within the surplus, you will find
those costs anticipated and built in, in our health care proposals.

So if you
were to attribute that cost to the tax cut, you would have to subtract
it from the health care proposal -- again, illustrating the point there
is plenty of room with a surplus of this size for the President's
priorities, and to pay down the debt. Keep in mind that the
$2.5 trillion that would be set aside for Social Security automatically
pays down the debt, and in the last three years, the Congress has paid
down the debt to the tune of $600 billion.

Someone
new? Go ahead.

Q Ari,
on the issue of health care, Senator Jeffords and a host of other
senators have actually sent a letter, or sent in a letter to President
Bush to urge him to act on the prescription drug reimportation
bill. What exactly is the Bush administration -- how do they
plan to act on this letter?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me take that question and get back.

Q Ari,
at the meeting today with the members of the Finance and the Ways and
Means Committee, was there any more discussion about compromise on how
to proceed with Medicare reform and prescription drugs, and
particularly -- I'm particularly interested in if there was any
discussion about private versus public funding.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President did talk about prescription drugs.
You had Chairman Thomas there, you had Senator Breaux there, two of the
cochairs of the previous congressional commission, that did arrive at a
very strong consensus recommendation on how to deal with Medicare,
indicating that there is bipartisanship.

And the
President indicated that if that was any guide -- and he did not
endorse each and every part of the Breaux-Thomas approach -- that if
that was any guide, that there are ways that have been shown to reform
Medicare that don't come with a very heavy price tag; that as a result
of the decision that was made, this can be done in a manner that is a
modern reform and update of the Medicare structure that doesn't come at
a substantial price tag, even with granting prescription drug
coverage. So the President pointed that out during the
course of the meeting.

Q Any
discussion about the prescription drug proposal itself and how that
might be compromised?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Nothing that I remember.

Q The
President's tax plan has not really grown that much since last year,
although the surplus has. Does the new surplus number from
the CBO open the door for him to consider other things, such as capital
gains and small business tax relief?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, his focus will be on enacting the plan that
he proposed. That is what he is going to try to get through
the Congress. Obviously, Congress may take a look and decide there are
some things that they would like to add to it or do differently, and
the President will review it at the appropriate time. But
from his point of view, he wants to address the needs of people before
he focuses on any of the tax needs of business or any of the other
interests that are weighing in.

Q So
he's not looking beyond the campaign program at all right now?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, this is the beginning of a process
in which the President will submit his budget and his tax plan to the
Congress, and he will work closely with the Congress
thereafter. But the core of it, what the President will
fight for are those proposals that he ran on, including the marginal
income tax rate cuts, reducing the marriage penalty, eliminating death
tax, et cetera.

Q Can
I ask two Persian Gulf questions? The President and Colin
Powell have made some rather tough statements today -- of course, the
President on Libya; the other day Colin Powell on Iraq. If
neither of these countries comply, what's the next
step? Obviously, we don't expect they roll over and do
whatever we want them to do.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about next steps and
other action that may be premature. But as the President
indicated this morning, it's important that we keep the pressure on
Libya to make certain that they compensate the victims of the flight,
and that they accept responsibility.

Q Ari,
the Air Transport Association asked the Bush administration to speed up
spending of the Aviation Trust Fund to improve the air traffic
controlling system. Are you aware of this request --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me refer you to DOT on that.

Q Ari,
there are reports that the rent on President Clinton's office space in
Manhattan, $700,000, more than all other former Presidents
combined. My question is, is this an appropriate use of
taxpayer money?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I've heard no discussion about that here at the
White House.

Q On Ashcroft, could I ask you -- did Senator Ashcroft get clearance from
the White House to submit a statement last week to the gay Log Cabin
Republican organization, and does the President recognize that that
organization is apparently joining the team to help secure the
nomination?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would have you address that to Mindy Tucker.
I'm not aware of each and every step along that line.

Q Ari,
on the Cabinet meeting, can you give us an idea as to how the President
plans to work with his Cabinet members now? Is he going to
meet regularly with the Cabinet and all? Are they going to
be like an advisory board to him? How is this relationship
going to work?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't think that the President has established
a firm order of meetings. I think he will just let events
develop as the President sees fit. But I think you're going
to see, in typical Bush style, a very collegial operating atmosphere
involving the Cabinet and the White House staff. There is
just -- in all the meetings that we participate in, there's a healthy
mix of Cabinet, staff and -- and the way President Bush did things in
Texas, he would find the best, smartest minds and have people work
things out and work them out together.

So I think
you just have to let it evolve, and we'll just suspend on making any
judgments. And I think different Cabinet Secretaries will
proceed in different ways to some degree as well.

Q Ari,
the Black Caucus said that only the leaders were originally invited to
the White House, but they preferred that the entire Caucus --

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it's everyone.

Q Did
the White House originally invite only the leadership? Did they prefer
a smaller meeting in the beginning?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it was everyone. From the very
first, it's been everyone.

Q Ari,
as a follow-up to that, we saw the President go to a predominantly
African American school last week for his education plan. I
think it was a predominantly African American church on
Sunday. Is this part of any effort to reach out to African
Americans who overwhelmingly voted for Al Gore?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think, Kelly, that it's a reflection of the
ideas that the President holds, and that's why his visit to this D.C.
school and the Fishing School that he visited yesterday. But
there is an element of reaching out in all the activities the President
undertakes. And so, I leave you with that.

Q Just
a quick follow-up. Does he have any specific plans to mark
Black History Month?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me review that and get back.

Q Ashcroft. Apparently,
there is a letter that's The National Baptist Convention, one of the
largest African American religious organizations, they're saying that
this letter is fraudulent. January 16th, it was submitted in
support of Ashcroft, and now the organization is saying it's
fraudulent. Is President Bush aware of this
controversy? And what are you saying about the fact that the
National Baptist Convention is withdrawing its support of Ashcroft?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me refer you to Senator Ashcroft's
spokeswoman for the transition.

Q A
question on the meeting with Ways and Means and Finance
today. Did the question of phase-ins come in?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not that I remember. No, I don't think
so.

Q Or
reworking the death tax at all --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not that I remember.

Q Was
there any discussion of specifics about the specifics of the plan and
how it might change, along the lines that Bush had talked about?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, there was no discussion about it in that
level of detail that I recall, Bob.

Q Ari,
in regard to two of his Republican senators, does he agree with the
Senator from Texas who proposed a uniform time to close the polls on
federal elections at 9:00 p.m. Central? Does he agree with
that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that's one of the issues the President is
open-minded about when people talk about election reform. It
is one of the ideas that has surfaced, and I think that's something we
want to have looked into.

Q Does
he agree or disagree with Senator Lott's statement that the pardon of
Marc Rich is outrageous and should be investigated, and would he be
opposed to a subpoena for the pardoner?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As the President said, that would not be a pardon
that he, himself, would have issued. And as far as the
Executive Branch is concerned, we consider the matter closed for the
Executive Branch.

Q You
wouldn't think that if they gave him a subpoena, it would be wrong?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate on hypotheticals.

Q Ari,
one of the things we heard about defense at the stakeout was that the
President had told the legislators that he would not be increasing
defense spending as much as they thought, that we would be surprised at
the numbers on defense spending in the first year, awaiting a complete
review of defense. Is that, in fact, what the President
said, and is he, in fact, intending not to increase defense spending as
much as anticipated?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That is substantially correct. What
the President said during the meeting, what he has said on other
occasions, is he is directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a
force structure review to determine what the long-term strategic needs
are for the Pentagon. And in the first-year budget that will
be submitted to the Congress for the Pentagon, it will be a lean
budget.

It will
reflect the President's campaign promises to increase the pay for the
military and to improve housing for the military. But,
beyond that, the President thinks the wise approach to take is for the
Pentagon to figure out long-term what its strategic needs are before we
simply start to throw money in the direction of defense. I
think some people may be surprised to hear a conservative Republican
talk like that. But that's the view, assess the long-term
needs before making a money decision.

Q Any
idea of base closures?

Q Ari,
can you tell us about this screening tomorrow night, the Thirteen
Days?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will be hosting a movie night
tomorrow night for the show, Thirteen Days, in the White House theater,
and he is inviting over several of the Kennedys to participate in
watching it with him, and other friends of his.

Q Is
there a particular motivation, or just to have a good time?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Obviously, the movie Thirteen Days is about one
of the most notable and important events in modern history, the Cuban
missile crisis, which, of course, involved the administration of former
President Kennedy. So I think the President thought it would
be a fitting tribute to the Kennedy family to invite them over to watch
it.

Q Are
only Democrats coming?

Q And
which Kennedys?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, you are presuming the only friends the
President has are Democrats. He does have a few
Republicans. (Laughter.) We will have a policy that the
President's friends that he invites to the theater or his family
members that he invites to the theater, that would be private
information for the President.

Q Is
there a significance that it comes on the 13th day of business of this
administration?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Don't tell anybody, but it's a sheer
coincidence.

Q Ari,
the President is going to a prayer meeting tomorrow. There may be some
international figures. Yesterday you said he doesn't intend
to speak to any of them. How long is he going to spend at
the meeting, and will he --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, I did not say that he does not intend
to speak to any of them. That would be rather
unfriendly. (Laughter.) But no meetings are planned.

Q Can
you give us a readout on what he plans to say at this meeting?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Don't have that yet, Ron.

Q How
long will he spend there?

MR.
FLEISCHER: We will be putting out the schedule tomorrow or a
little later this evening.

Q At
the meeting this morning, was the idea of cutting the FICA tax raised
at all? And what does the President think about the
arguments made by Congressman Rangel and others to cut the FICA tax?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't believe that was raised this
morning. I didn't hear it if it was. The
President believes that the way to help people who pay taxes at the
bottom end of the economic scale is to cut the 15 percent
across-the-board rate down to 10 percent and to double the child credit
from $500 to $1,000. Those two changes will
disproportionately help low-income Americans and that's why the
President made those two proposals.

Q Ari,
a group of bipartisan senators headed by Senator Dodd introduced
yesterday legislation calling to suspend -- of two years the
certification of drugs -- other countries. What is the
position of the Executive Branch on that legislation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me take that question and see if we can get
back on it.

Q Ari,
coming back to defense, is the President willing to consider the idea
of more base closures in the years ahead?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that those type of determinations will
await a force structure review that will be taken by
DOD. And that should not lead anybody to believe that will
be part of their review, but they need to first take a look at what the
review will entail. When the President announced it, he
talked about modernizing the military, making the military lighter and
more lethal and developing the next generation of weapons.

Thank you.

Oh, let me
-- we must resume. Thank you and I'm glad somebody pointed
this out and reminded me. Today is a very important day at
the White House for other reasons. And I would like to note
that today is Clyde Robinson's retirement day. Clyde, as
many of you know, has been working for NBC here for more than 30
years. He is the former manager of a Safeway store and then
has been with NBC.

And he is
known around here -- I am new here, but I already know that he is known
around here as the Mayor of the White House. (Laughter.) So
I would like to just congratulate Clyde on his
retirement. It's a wonderful
day. (Applause.) Come up, Clyde.

MR.
ROBINSON: Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MR.
FLEISCHER: Would you like to speak?

MR.
ROBINSON: I have a letter -- no. (Laughter and
applause.)

Q They
won't fire you! (Laughter.)

Q Have
you made any kind of calculations to see how much better Clyde's
retirement would have been under the private sector? (Laughter.)

MR.
FLEISCHER: Thanks, Clyde. Congratulations,
Clyde.

There's a
cake here and everybody's invited to munch -- and
champagne. We need to make that a regular event here in the
White House. (Laughter.)